西媒导读 第 27 期 – 西方社会阶层的分化
Accelerating Openness
The Mentality Carrier 西媒导读
第 40 期 理性与信仰——矛盾的两极 Edited by Adrian Chen
Issue 40 。
Reason and Faith
March 25th, 2018
Apr.4, 2015
西媒导读 第 40 期 – 理性与信仰——矛盾的两极 导读：理性和信仰在我们生活中充当怎样的角色？这两者对我们的生活又有怎 样的指导意义？我们在生活中其实经常在理性和信仰之间的过渡地带徘徊—— 在不同的情境下，理性和信仰都会有所应用。理论中的正确与谬误，需要思考 和推导来论证，但更多需要在实践当中来体会和确认。寻找适合自己当下理解 水平的信息，尽可能多地实践与测试——这应该是循序渐进地理解理论的科学 方法。
Reason and Faith 理性与信仰——矛盾的两极
在进一步讨论之前，我们需要对“信仰”这一概念下一个清晰的定义。我们在这 里所讨论的信仰的含义是，“在缺乏客观理由，甚至违背客观理由的情况下，接 受一种观点，并承认它的正确性”。当然，你可能对信仰的定义有不同的理解， 这也是可以的。但是，当前我们不妨把信仰的定义理解为这样，目的是有一个 共同讨论的参考系。所以，我们在下文所讨论的内容，都将会基于这一含义。 我们先来讨论信仰含义的第一个层面：“在缺乏客观理由的情况下接受一种观 点。” 显然，有些人总是能够给你各种各样的解释——比如，有些教徒在谈论宗教或 邪教的时候能够说个不停而且貌似头头是道，但是他们的解释可能有缺乏逻辑 和掺假的情形。所以，我们在这里讨论的，不是为你所相信的找借口，而是讨 论用真实确凿的证据来支持你所相信的东西。下面我们来举几个例子。
A few years ago, the Heaven's Gate cult decided that a group of aliens were hiding behind a comet, coming to free them from the turmoils of life on earth. All they needed to do to hitch a ride was to prove that they were sincere in their belief. Ritual suicide was the method. This is a wonderful example of faith. The first question, when someone suggests that you kill yourself to go to heaven, should be "What evidence do you have for such a theory”? Faith was required. Sure, the leader probably had told them about hearing voices in his head or whatever else, but these aren't really reasons. He couldn't provide any evidence. They only had his word, and that had to be weighed against all kinds of other possible explanations. Sometimes the best way to understand a concept is to contrast it with others. There are some aspects of reason that fit this description. Specifically, it's useful to contrast it with the concept of faith.
几年前，邪教组织“天堂之门”认为一些外星人正躲藏在彗星的后面，将要把人 们从生灵涂炭的境地解救出来，给以他们自由。为了加入这一组织，每个成员 需要尽可能证明他们对信仰的极度虔诚，而证明的方法却是一种仪式性的自杀。
很多时候，理解一个概念的最佳方法是把它与其他概念进行对比——对于“理性” 这一概念，也是如此。所以，把“理性”和“信仰”这两个概念的诸多方面进行对 比是很有用的。
这是关于信仰的一个贴切的例子。但是当有人建议你通过自杀来获得前往天堂 的机会时，首先的问题应该是，“你凭借什么证据来支持的你的理论呢？” 当然， 邪教教主会告诉教众他所听到的某些灵异声音以及各种超自然现象，但这并不 能作为真正的理由——因为他无法提供任何证据。如果有人相信了教主的话， 那么此时他一人之词分量，就超过了其他所有客观解释和证据的分量。
Let us define a clear and specific concept of faith, so that further discussion can be based on this. Faith is accepting an idea as true without reason, or against reason. The first half of this is accepting an idea in spite of the fact that there is no justified reason to believe it. Obviously someone can try to rationalize anything, so we're not talking about just giving an excuse for a belief. We're talking about actual evidence that leads to that particular belief. Let's take some examples.
And that's the important part. Reason allows us to analyse the data and form the best possible conclusion from it. When someone takes any random piece of data and latches on to it, ignoring everything else, that also counts as faith. They're not forming their conclusions based on the evidence available. They're basing it on what they want to believe. 1|P age
西媒导读 第 40 期 – 理性与信仰——矛盾的两极 理性能够使我们全面地分析数据，从而获得最准确的结论和最优化的解决方案。 而当有些人总是用一些片面的数据来支持自己的想法，认死理而无视其他数据， 也可以算作信仰。他们并不能对现有数据进行科学分析而得出结论，而是纯粹 地一味推崇自己想要相信的，甚至会寻找片面的数据来支持自己的想法的正确 性。
Obviously religions are a good example of faith, since many actually preach the virtue of faith. If you say you can't understand why God would let innocent people die, or children get abused, or anything else, they say you're not supposed to understand. You're supposed to just believe. Just take it on faith. Believe without reason, without evidence, and without understanding. 显然，宗教是关于信仰的好例子，因为很多宗教宣扬“拥有信仰是一种美德”。 当你问你不明白为什么上帝会让无辜的人死去，或者让孩子们遭受虐待等等， 他们会说你不需要明白其中的原因。你只要相信就可以了——全身投入地去相 信，无需知晓理由。
The other half of faith is believing in something despite contrary evidence for it. One old common belief was that central planning was an effective method of producing wealth. As the evidence piled up against it, people continued to believe. They want to believe, and they just refused to acknowledge the evidence. Country after country collapsed into famine and horrible poverty, and the belief went on. The Soviet Union had to collapse before people started having doubts, and there are plenty of hard-core believers still around. This is faith. 关于信仰含义的第二个层面，就是在有充分的证据反驳某理论时，仍然对该理 论深信不疑。在过去人们对一个信念深以为然，那就是“中央计划经济能有效 地创造财富”。在过去几十年间，尽管有大量的证据证明中央计划经济不再切 实可行，很多人仍然对它的优越性坚信不疑，并且拒绝接受（哪怕是了解）那 些反驳的证据。随着时间推移，一个接一个的国家陷入饥荒和极度的贫困之中， 然而这丝毫没有影响这份信念的存在。苏联甚至在很多人对它产生怀疑之前就 突然解体了，而从那之后，仍然有许多对中央计划经济的坚定支持者（如古巴 和朝鲜）——而这，也是信仰的一种。
Contrast this with reason. Reason requires evidence to form a conclusion. It doesn't ignore or evade known facts. It is a process by which you try to
formulate a conclusion based on all of the facts. It absolutely never accepts anything without reason for it. 就证据这一点来说，理性需要确凿的证据来得出结论，并且不能有意忽视、逃 避或歪曲事实。这就是一个基于所有可考证的事实来得出结论的过程，在此过 程中绝不接受没有证据支持的观点。
Now this understanding of reason and faith are polar opposites. How about a middle ground between the two? What if you have some supporting evidence for a theory, but there are enough unknowns to make you seriously doubt if the conclusion is correct? The first point to make here is that this is acknowledging that you don't have enough evidence is a product of reason. Forming conclusions is not just weighing the known factors. We all learn in life that you can also evaluate the quality of the information, and how complete it is. In other words, there are reasons to not believe the evidence, and those reasons are based on your understanding of how thorough the information needs to be. 现在我们会发现，理性和信仰好像分别属于两个极端，那么中间有没有过渡地 带呢？比如，你有部分证据来支持你的理论，但同时又有很多未知的问题，使 你严重怀疑结论的准确性。 在这里需要首先说明的是，“承认没有足够的证据支持”其实已经是你理性思维 的产物。想要得出结论，已知的证据经常还不够——就好像在破案过程中，需 要搜集更多的事实，理清之间的逻辑，才能保证结论的准确性。所以，搜集信 息的质量和完整性是很重要的，否则我们会停留在理性和信仰中间的过渡地带。
Let's take an example. You find out a woman was murdered in New York City last night. You find out someone you've never liked was also in NYC last night. Conclusion: he killed her! Well, you probably don't believe that's enough information to make that judgment. The first reason is that millions of other people could fit that description, so the evidence is equally supportive of concluding someone else did it. You'd also have no evidence of motive, which would explain why the murder happened. You may need better information on whether the person had the opportunity as well.
2|P age
西媒导读 第 40 期 – 理性与信仰——矛盾的两极 下面举个简单的例子。你发现昨天晚上一位女士在纽约被谋杀了，而恰巧一个 你很讨厌的人当时也在纽约，然后你的结论是：“就是他杀了那个女人！” 当然， 仅凭借这点信息是无法得出结论的。首先，当时不仅你讨厌的人在纽约，其他 几百万人都在纽约；而且，你也没有足够的证据去解释犯罪动机，为什么会发 生这起谋杀案；同时你还需要更充分的信息来证明他当时在凶案现场。
So even in this case, faith and reason are never combined. If you accept the weak conclusion as if it were absolutely true beyond any doubt, you'd be acting on faith, not reason. Your belief wouldn't be justified by reason. If you accept it tentatively, you're not accepting it on faith, but reason. And only to the extent that reason supports it.
The point is that although you may have some weak data to suggest a conclusion, you know that there are a lot more factors that need to be understood before you can really be sure of it. So these reasons against the conclusion are based on your knowledge of what it requires to make a valid conclusion in this context. A more straightforward reason to reject it would be if the guy had an alibi. But there are all kinds of indirect reasons. What if he was known to be a moral person who you trusted? It may not directly contradict the conclusion, but you'd want a stronger case.
所以即使是在这个事例里，信仰和理性依然是两个极端，始终没有混淆在一起。 如果你接受一个缺乏证据的结论，就好像它完全正确而不容置疑，那么你便是 依靠信仰行事。 如果你只是暂时保留那个结论（或假设），继续全面地搜集证据来支持你的观 点，那么你便是依靠理性行事。
尽管你有一些不充分的证据都导向了一个结论，但你心里明白，在真正证明它 之前还有很多因素需要弄清楚。因此，怎样的证据才算充分确凿，不仅是你公 正的体现，也是你学识的体现。 一个简单直接的证据可以来反驳一个人是凶手——比如他有不在场证明。但是 除此之外，还有很多蛛丝马迹和间接的因素需要调查，来完全排除这个人是凶 手的可能。如果这个人恰巧是一个公认的品德高尚而且你又熟识的人呢？这也 许不能直接推翻结论，但是依然需要一个更有力的证据才能还原真相。
Now again, what if the evidence is weak? Well, if the conclusion is the best you can come up with, but still lacks sufficient backing, it would be wrong to accept the conclusion wholeheartedly. In other words, reason would say that you can tentatively accept the conclusion, for lack of a better one, but you should treat this "knowledge" as tentative. If you accept it as strongly as you accept any other piece of knowledge, it would be unjustified. 现在还是这个问题，在证据不充分的情况下我们该怎么办呢？如果这是你目前 得出的最佳结论，但是仍然缺少证据的支持，那么完全去接受这个结论便是错 误的。理性告诉你，当前你只能暂时地保留这个结论，对它打一个问号；但是 你不能像接受其他事实一样去接受它。
Reason and faith are completely incompatible. Faith is the destroyer of reason. It takes particular ideas and divorces them from reality and from reason. If you accept something on faith, you are essentially saying that you will take it off of the table with regards to reason, and treat it how you feel like treating it. Wherever faith goes, reason is pushed out. 信仰和理性是完全不相容的，信仰有时会摧毁一个人的理性。信仰会把人头脑 中的某些想法从事实和理性中剥离开来。假如你依靠信仰接受了某种结论，那 么与此同时理性也被抛弃了，然后你开始用你喜欢的方式去臆想事实——无论 你的思绪飞往何处，理性都未被你所考量。 3|P age
西媒导读 第 40 期 – 理性与信仰——矛盾的两极
But it's worse than that. If you accept an idea on faith, it can conflict with the ideas you've accepted with reason. To make sense of it all, and to integrate the different ideas, you have to reconcile those beliefs. That means either throwing out the ideas based on faith and sticking to reason, or more likely throwing out reason and sticking with the faith.
So if faith and reason conflict, one must give way to the other. One must grow at the expense of the other. They are in mortal combat for your soul.
但还有比这更糟的。如果你听凭信仰接受了一个主意，它会与通过理性得到的 结论产生冲突。为了弄明白这一切，并且整合不同的想法，你需要调和这些理 念。这就意味着，你要么抛弃信仰而坚持由理性得来的想法，要么更想要抛弃 理性选择听从信仰。
Now what if they don't exactly conflict? What if you believe random things like the center of Jupiter is made of chocolate pudding? Does that cause reason to retreat? Well, if ever the two came into conflict, they would. It does have two direct side effects.
Imagine you are analyzing an idea with reason and it conflicts with your faith. If you ignore the contradiction and accept it anyway, you'll be undermining your reasoning process. Reason requires a logical exploration of the data, weeding out any contradictions it finds. If you allow the contradiction anyway, you'll have to suspend your reasoning ability. And that means you'll be accepting the new idea, not on reason as it very well might be justified by, but on faith. Faith grows, and reason gives ground. 想像一下，你在用理性分析一个新主意，然而这个主意跟你的信仰冲突。这时， 如果你无视这个矛盾而仍然接受这个主意·，你便是在弱化理性思考的过程。理 性的思考需要对数据进行逻辑性的探究，并消除在此过程中出现的所有矛盾。 如果你无论如何都要接受这些矛盾，那你就必须暂时终止使用你的推理能力。 而这就意味着，这个被你接受的新主意，不是依靠最有可能被证明的的途径— —理性思维得出的，而是依靠信仰。信仰增长，则理性让步。
If, on the other hand you don't ignore the contradiction, but accept it as valid, you'll use your reasoning method on incorrect facts. Simple case is Creationism. If you accept that the universe was created a few thousand years ago, as the bible says, then you have to start interpreting actual facts in this light. When you see the dinosaur bones, you'll have to imagine that god put them in the earth to trick everyone (he is mysterious, isn't he?). 从另一方面来说，如果你选择面对这个矛盾，并且认为他们是存在的，你就需 要用你的推理能力来解决一些不正确的“事实”。神创论是其中一个例子。如果 你承认，就像圣经上讲的那样，宇宙是在仅仅几千年前形成的，那你就不得不 试着从这个角度解释真正的事实。所以当你发现亿万年前的恐龙化石时，难免 会觉得神创论的解释是充满矛盾的。
所以当信仰与理性冲突时，一者必须为另一者让步，一者的增长必须以另一者 的牺牲为代价。它们为你的灵魂所有权展开了生死决斗。
那么如果他们并没有那么冲突呢？如果你相信一些乱七八糟的事情，比如说木 星是用巧克力布丁做成的，那会怎样呢？这会使理性撤退吗？当两者有冲突时， 那答案是肯定的。这会造成两个直接的副作用。
First, anything taken on faith is treated by your mind as a buffer zone against reason. If you were to analyze it with reason, the ideas would die a quick death. So to maintain them, you have to avoid using reason with them. This creates a sort of minefield in your head, where you have to twist and turn your reasoning skills to avoid all of the sensitive spots. That's doesn't work well in regards to efficiency. 首先，任何被你依靠信仰接受的事情，都可以被视作与理性进行对抗的缓冲区。 一旦你想要用理性去分析其中的某个想法，这个想法就会马上消失掉。所以为 了维持他们的存在，你就必须避免用理性思维去探究他们。这就在你的大脑中 创造了一系列的雷区，在这里你必须扭曲和折中你的推理技巧来避免这些敏感 区域。而这，对于提高工作效率并没有一点好处。
Second, every idea taken on faith cannot be integrated with the rest of your knowledge. To simply maintain all of the random ideas you can fill your head with, you'd have to devote a lot of mental energy. And then you have the problem that those ideas may conflict with one another. The end result is that your mind is cluttered with useless garbage, and you have to compare every new idea with the thousand arbitrary ideas you've accepted on faith. 另一方面，任何一个信仰所得的想法，都无法与你的其他知识有机整合在一起。 仅仅为了保持头脑中的这些凌乱的想法，你需要花去大量的精力，然后你会头 疼地发现这些想法之间会相互冲突。结果就是你的脑海中混乱地充斥着很多无 用信息，然后你不得不将每一个想法与其他成千上万个武断的想法进行比较。 4|P age
西媒导读 第 40 期 – 理性与信仰——矛盾的两极
Hopefully this gives you some insight into why faith is bad, and consequently the advantages of reason.
推荐栏目：哈佛大学《公正》系列课程
Michael Sandel 先生的 Justice 系列课程，包含了与生活息息相关的多个话题。 可以发现，关于信仰并不能简单地回答肯定或否定；或者说，这个回答似乎显 得不是那么重要了。重要的是，我们经历了这个漫长的讨论过程，我们对理性 和信仰的认识从而得以提高。由于我们个人所看到的、了解到的东西是有限的 （就连破案也需要时间一点一点收集证据的），所以我们其实经常在理性和信 仰之间的过渡地带徘徊——在不同的情境下，理性和信仰都会有所实践。所以 我们现在分析清楚了两者的特点，然后渐渐学会在不同情境下怎样运用它们， 得以发挥两者各自的优势。（完）
这 24 节课系统地展现了知识架构，这和他的 TED 演讲和学术报告是不同的。先 生讲课出口成章，条理而清晰，展现了他的个人品质和情怀。 了解更多请登录： 哈佛大学《公正》课程官网：http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/ 网易公开课（含中文翻译）：http://open.163.com/special/justice/
本文原载于：http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture15.shtml 翻译：Cathy Chen 校对：Rebecca Wang 编辑：Adrian Chen
5|P age
Official Page: http://issuu.com/mentality.carrier The Mentality Carrier 2018 | Sydney | Australia Powered By: